United States v. Song

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4705
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JASON KWANGCHUL SONG,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder,
District Judge. (1:08-cr-00349-TDS-1)
Submitted: January 24, 2011 Decided: April 28, 2011
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, John A. Dusenbury, Jr.,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellant. Anand P. Ramaswamy, Assistant United States
Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jason Kwangchul Song pleaded guilty, pursuant to a
plea agreement, to making a false statement in an application
for a passport in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1542 (2006). The
district court sentenced Song to a within-Guidelines term of
twelve months of imprisonment. The district court imposed
Song’s sentence to run consecutively to an undischarged state
sentence Song is presently serving on unrelated convictions.
On appeal, Song’s counsel filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he states
that he finds no meritorious issues for appeal, but questions
whether it was unreasonable for the district court to sentence
Song consecutively rather than concurrently to his undischarged
state term of imprisonment. Song did not file a supplemental
brief, nor did the Government file a responsive brief.
We conclude that Song is not entitled to relief. To
the extent that he challenges the district court’s decision to
sentence him consecutively to his undischarged state sentence
rather than concurrently, we review a district court’s
imposition of a sentence under a deferential abuse-of-discretion
standard. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
The district court acted within its discretion and provided a
sound explanation for its decision to reject Song’s request for
a concurrent term of imprisonment at sentencing. The record
2
does not support a finding that the district court’s sentence
was unreasonable in this regard.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We therefore affirm Song’s conviction and sentence. This court
requires that counsel inform Song, in writing, of the right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If Song requests that a petition be filed, but counsel
believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel
may move in this court for leave to withdraw from
representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on Song.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
3